Same thing hasn't happened under Labour because steps were quickly taken to end the crisis in the pensions sector. But the underlying problem remains that high spending isn't viable forever.
FWIW, Labour's economic policy is much worse than Truss' ever was. UK is heading for a massive crisis that makes the mini-budget LDI blowup look like a storm in a teacup. Labour have not only not reassured the market, they are actively antagonizing it as can be seen in the yields that are now persistently higher than during Truss. Labour backbenchers won't let the UK cut spending and bondholders are starting to think they won't get their money back. They are right to worry.
Whether or not someone was able to foresee the exact specifics is irrelevant. Everyone who knew anything knew that the budget would have catastrophic consequences.
You don’t have to like Labour’s economic policy, but it’s rather a weak argument to insist that it will eventually lead to an even bigger crisis that the Truss-induced crisis that has actually happened. So far it hasn’t. Isn’t economic policy essentially the art of delaying crises, in any case?
Why hasn’t the same thing happened under Labour? For various reasons, (not least that their economic policy isn’t stark raving bonkers), but largely because they’ve taken very explicit care to reassure the markets and make sure that no-one is surprised or alarmed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/18/infrastructu...